Interaction and Interactivity 253growth and transition, which focuses interactivity because its subject is ultimately
indeterminable and its activity beyond fixation? That highlights a new sympathy for Bergson,
Peirce or James. The pragmatism of each élan vital expresses itself in signs, symbols and
Thirdness. Theirs is not a metaphysic of process like Teilhard de Chardin developed, but a
pragmatic élan engraved in the images of a human face. Do not forget that any face is
cognized in its process character whilst an insight in the human body unfolds. Shown is a
surface in growth, a skin in change, a glance in futures based on a past that etched what is
mirrored and projects what is shared in life's experiences.
Our age of semiotics does not proclaim any interactionism as its basic philosophy. True
interactivity is not in the countenances around us, since faces are essentially evolving in time
and space and thus becoming: becoming sign or symbol and infinitely more, perhaps a subject
that recognizes itself as an "I"—until also this "I" withdraws from our recognition and
becomes a name, a psychic entity, ―an/other‖ in a process that can not become encountered
the way lawyers experience. So they must turn their own faces around to solely operate in a
world of fixated meanings. Is this how lawyers make meaning—with faces turned away?
Consider the sentence that "the Court may say for law'': a performative speech act with
predominantly institutional character. Does that utterance fit the features of "an individual in
interactivity"? The question is a key to the central thesis of this note. It says that semiotics
applied in legal discourse show how problematic it is to maintain "interaction" because all
implications of that concept withstand our experiences of social life. Once more: semiotic
analyses unveil how life unfolds in "interactivity" that focuses the human subject in its
relations to others: a process of "being in interactivity". Does this commentary propose to just
change words, propagate to no longer use "interaction" and use "interactivity" instead? It
seems most challenging to conclude with this ironical, naïve and clearly inappropriate
proposal, which inspires nevertheless!